Do movie adaptaions tend to ruin the book?

Question

I give you some examples:
Harry Potter movie series
Da Vinci Code
Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy

Answer 1

Some times yes sometimes no. The movie examples you just gave shows just how bad hollywood has come in adapting movies from books. At one time Hollywood could successfully adapted a book into a movie, case in point Cheaper by the Dozen by Frank Gilbert Junior and Ernestine Gilbert Carey, yes there was actually a book by that name and a movie too believe it or not and the book was published in 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheaper_by_the_dozen and of course you can add The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind to the list where Hollywood has done a good job in recreating those books into movies. Unfortunately to make a good movie out of novel you need good movie directors and producers and writers; Hollywood is not coming up with movie producers like David O. Selznick or movie directors Norman Jewison who knew how to turn a book into a great movie. Now adays Hollywood is just concern with turning out a dollar then capturing the true story of a book. Anyways, there is one good thing about this all I been now force to read books like the Harry Potter series to get a good idea what is going on behind the books.

Answer 2

I don't think that they ruin the book, but I do think that they usually don't follow the books enough.
They're more interested in following just enough to make people want to see it, and a lot of times they sacrifice good detail for the kind of comedy or situation that makes it more likeable.
In Da Vinci Code, they cut out so much and changed so much to play it for the masses. That movie was pretty bad, to an extreme. They tried to capitalize on the book's popularity but then tried to water it down so people would like it better.
That's an exceptionally bad adaption, but for the most part, I think they do okay.
In Harry Potter, I think it was more of a time crunch issue- the books are long and there are a lot of things, and they'd be Lord of the Rings length if they tried to make it perfect. They did what they could and I think they're doing all right.
In Hitchhiker, they were taking something pretty popular but not quite well known and trying to juice it up. They went a little far, but they did okay with it and at least kept it entertaining.
I enjoy seeing the movies that were made from books, but I always go in expecting them to have skipped some key things, and for it not to be perfect. They have to play too much to the masses for it to be perfect.

Answer 3

The book is always better than the movie, except for a select few like Star Wars. Read the book first, then you'll know what it's really supposed to be. For eg. in HP 4, Rita Skeeter has a minor part and they don't even mention she's a animagus. Also, they left out the blast-ended skrewts. If you read the book, you have space to imagine what the scenery, characters, etc. look like, with the movie you don't. The movie is fun, but the book is almost always better.

Answer 4

Some movie adaptations tend to ruin the book. as another answer so well puts it. the movie is no comparasion to your imgaination.
ironically the potter movies do deviate a lot from the book. not every detail is included. and this tends to confuse the viewer. and if you have not read the books it's lost on you.
but at the same time there are movies that are better than the book.
(can't think of any right now, but am sure that they are some...)

Answer 5

Some movies do. Like Ella Enchanted. I loved loved loved that book. And then they made the movie. It was terrible. It ripped that book apart. Now whenever I talk about the book people say," Oh' I saw that movie", or "I don't need to read the book, I saw the movie," It drives me insane! The book is 100 times better! They left out the best parts and rearranged the entire plot!

Answer 6

Not always. Movies generally have to change things to succeed---what works in a book doesn't always work on screen. But I give you these examples of EXCELLENT movie treatments of excellent books: To Kill a Mockingbird; The Reivers (although changed quite a lot); The Lord of the Rings trilogy; Sounder; A Tree Grows in Brooklyn; Lonesome Dove; The Thornbirds (last two were mini-series, but still)

Answer 7

It mostly has to do with editing and/or time constraints on the movie. Most studios like to keep it in the 2-3 hour range at most so they can get more viewings and therefore more money. The result is that important plot points frequently get cut out of movie adaptations of books.

Answer 8

It really depends on the writers/actors/directors. Some of the Harry Potter movies were faithful to every word, but seemed kinda flat onscreen, whereas the last two didn't have every last detail, but were superior, in my opinion. In my experience, the more I loved the book, the more I was disappointed with the movie.

Answer 9

I think as a rule movie adaptions do ruin the book. I believe the best representation of a book has been The Lord of the Rings and even that was Hollywood-ified.

Answer 10

Movie adaptations generally ruin the book.Any one who watched the Count of Montecristo movies would vouch for that.The movies totally ruined that great book.However there are exceptions.Lord of the Rings proved to be more interesting on screen than on paper.The movie Chocolat starring Johnny Depp proved to be much better than the book.